The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1887-03-29
THE ST PREME cot RT
TWO IMPORTANT DECISIONS RENDERED.
Court A Virginia Coupon Tan Case De-
cision in Chambers.

| WASHINGTON. March 26.-A decision
was rendered 10y the United States Su-
| preme Court to-day. in the Habeas Cor
| pIIs Cas.. No. :. Original l,drtP in the
matter of George VI. Bair. Jr.. petit
| TONER. Bair. the petitioner in this case
was cashier of the Exchange National
| Bank of Norfolk and was indicted under
| Section J209. II. ;. for making false
report or statement a. to the condition of
the hank. He was found guilty and
sentenced to five years imprisonment III
the Albany penitentiary. He made APP
plication To- this court for writ of
habeas corpus and discharge from the
custody of the United States Marshal on
the ground. first, that the indictment ON
which he was tried was not found 10y
legal or valid grand jury. and second,
| that the indictment itself was unconsti-
| tuti"nal and void because after it came
from the grand jury the court allowed it
to be altered. without considering the
question a. Ia the validity of the grand
jury.
This Court. IN a careful ami learned
opinion 10y Justice Miller. held. first.
| that an Indictment found 10y "A grand
! jury was lspensable la the power of
Court tn try the petitioner for the crime
with which he WAS charged; second
that the Indictment on which he was
tried. after it had been changed and
| amended by order or permission of the
Court. was no longer an indictment of
the grand jury that presented IT, Any
other doctrine would place the rights of
the citizen. which We're intended Ia be
protected 10y Constitutional provision,
at the mercy or the control of the Court
or the prosecuting attorney. or If IT be
once. held that changes can be made by
consent ar ordered bv "A Court in the body
of the Indictment as presented 10y the
grand jury. and "A prisoner can he called
to answer to the indictment as thus
changed. the restriction which the Con
stitution places upon the power of the
Court i'm regard To the pre-requisit" nf
an Indictment no longer exists.
Ii is of no avail under such circum-
stances to say that the Court still has
crime. for. though it has possession of
the person and would have jurisdiction
of the crime. if il were properly present
ed by Indictment, jurisdiction OF the
offence il gone. and the Court has no
right To- proceed any further in the caHe
for want of an Indictment. If there is
nothing before the Court which the
prisoner. i'm the language of the tonstI-
tuition can be- held to answer, he is
entitled to be discharged So far a. the
offense originally presented to the Court
bv the Indictment is concerned. The
power of the Court to proceed To try the
prisoner is as much arrested as if the
Indictment had been dismissed or "A Hotfe
pros. had been entered There was nothing
before the Court on which it could hear
evidence or pronounce sentence. The
case comes within the principles laid
down by this Court in er IEtrte Lang
1S Wall 1881: e.r I,drte. Parks (9:i L. :.
IsD: er J,aIfe Wilson Ola L. =. 4Is). and
other cases.
These views dispense with the neces-
sity of examining into questions con
cerning the formation of the grand jury,
its removal from place to place within
the district. The court H. of the opinion
that the petitioner y entitled {" writ of
hab.-as corpus. and IL l. accordingly
granted This decision of the court II
practically equivalent la a discharge Of
the prisoner from costody.
THE VIRGINIA COUPON TAX CASE.
A decision was also rendered 10y the
court to-day in the Virginia coupon tax
case of VIM. l.. Royall against the state
of Virginia. This is an appeal from the
Judgment pronounced against R"yall by
the Supreme Court of Appeals of Nir
ginia, ON the 25th of February last. in
the case in which he was prosecuted 10y
ths. State for practicing his profession a.
a lawyer without license. after having
rendered the said State coupons i'm pay
ment of his license tax.
This Court holds that the present cisa
cannot be distinguished i'm principle
from that nf RoyaIl ". Virginia II6 L.
s. 5.2 and on that authority the judg-
ment of the supreme Court Of Appeals
of Virginia i, reversed and the cause re-
manded. with instructions To- allow the
writ Of error which was prayed for.
Opinion by Chief Justice Waite.
THE JUDGES Not THE COURTS DECISION.
Decision was also referred in the simi-
lar coupon tax case of ii. \. Carper.
jailer of Pulaski county. Va. against
Richard l.. Fitzgerald, appeal from the
United States Supreme Court for tine
Eastern District of Virginia. Fitzgerald
was a travelling salesman. He was ar
rested in Pulaski county. Va. for doing
business without license. after he had
Offered tax receivable coupons in pay
ment for such license. Upon writ of
habeas corpus he was discharged from
the custody by Judge Bond, of
the United States Circuit Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting as a
| Circuit Judge in chambers at Raltimore.